Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Christina M. Gullion
East-West Center
The authors evaluated the reliability and validity of a tool for measuring older adults decision-making
competence (DMC). A sample of 205 younger adults (25 45 years), 208 young-older adults (6574
years), and 198 old-older adults (7597 years) made judgments and decisions related to health, finance,
and nutrition. Reliable indices of comprehension, dimension weighting, and cognitive reflection were
developed. Comparison of the performance of old-older and young-older adults was possible in this
study, unlike previous research. As hypothesized, old-older adults performed more poorly than youngolder adults; both groups of older adults performed more poorly than younger adults. Hierarchical
regression analyses showed that a large amount of variance in decision performance across age groups
(including mean trends) could be accounted for by social variables, health measures, basic cognitive
skills, attitudinal measures, and numeracy. Structural equation modeling revealed significant pathways
from 3 exogenous latent factors (crystallized intelligence, other cognitive abilities, and age) to the
endogenous DMC latent factor. Further research is needed to validate the meaning of performance on
these tasks for real-life decision making.
Keywords: decision-making competence, aging, persontask fit framework, measurement methods
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019106.supp
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
272
Performance-based measures of DMC are rare. Recent exceptions include the Adult Decision-Making Competence index
(A-DMC; Bruine de Bruin, Parker, & Fischhoff, 2007) and the
Youth Decision-Making Competence index (Y-DMC) (Parker &
Fischhoff, 2005). These indices incorporate a variety of experimental tasks developed originally to describe general cognitive
processes. The authors have reported correlated responses across
tasks comprised by the indices, suggesting a positive manifold of
decision-making performance (Stanovich & West, 2000). However, the composite nature of the tasks obscures decision-maker
strengths and weaknesses at the level of specific decision skills.
Furthermore, some items in these indices may not be appropriate
for very old populations (e.g., asking the probability of getting into
a car accident when driving is not relevant for many old-older
adults who do not drive).
An alternative approach to developing performance-based measures of DMC taken by Finucane and colleagues (Finucane, Mertz,
Slovic, & Schmidt, 2005; Finucane et al., 2002) has emphasized
the need for standardized measurement of the multiple specific
skills that constitute competent decision processes. In developing
items applicable across the adult life span, these researchers have
attempted to capture functionally different capacities that may be
served by different cognitive abilities and information-processing
modes. However, initial research suggested that some items had
low discriminability and indices of some skills (e.g., consistency)
had low reliability. In addition, limited measurements of decisionmaker characteristics in earlier studies restricted examination of
the construct validity of the tasks. Also, samples did not include
sufficient individuals representing very old adults. This group was
arguably of greatest interest and concern, given demographic
trends toward an increasing proportion of old-older adults in the
population.
younger adults (Kutner, Greenberg, & Baer, 2005), but the role of
numeracy in DMC remains an open question.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
273
Method
Participants
We recruited 611 participants from the Kaiser Permanente Hawaii membership and the general community in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Each participant was paid $40; for individuals tested outside our
research center (e.g., at a retirement community), an additional $5
per participant was donated to the participating organization.
Eligibility criteria were evaluated in a telephone-screening interview. Individuals were required to have at least an eighth-grade
education, to be able to read English well or very well, not to be
depressed (score of less than 3 on the Patient Health Questionnaire2; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2003), not to be anxious
(score of less than 3 on a two-item anxiety questionnaire developed for this study), to have no physical ailment that would
prevent participation (e.g., blindness, severe arthritis), and to have
a score of 18 or higher on the ALFI-MMSE, a mini-mental status
examination (Roccaforte, Burke, Bayer, & Wengel, 1992).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
274
adults and forty-five minutes for younger adults). The full set of
items in the tool for assessing DMC is provided in the online
supplemental materials. The booklet contained multiple pen-andpaper tasks designed to measure comprehension, consistency, dimension weighting, and cognitive reflection. (Additional filler
tasks were presented but are not relevant to the present paper and
are thus not reported.) The content of the tasks was relevant to
making choices in one of three domains that older adults are likely
to encounter: (a) health (e.g., selecting a health care plan); (b)
finance (e.g., selecting a mutual fund); and (c) nutrition (e.g.,
choosing among food products). Other sections of the booklet
collected information about decision style, self-perceptions, and
demographics. The booklet was printed in 14-point font wherever
possible to accommodate age-related vision deficits. Finally, the
participants completed a battery of cognitive abilities measures
administered in person. The battery took about thirty minutes to
complete.
Comprehension measures. The comprehension problems
(labeled COM) had one of two formats. One format presented a
table of options with their values on a set of dimensions (choice
array), followed by literal and/or inferential comprehension questions. The second format involved a similar tabular presentation
but with instructions to choose an option that satisfies given
criteria. The correct answer was unambiguous in both formats, and
these items were scored using an item key. There were seven
simple problems (COM-1 to COM-7) and seven complex
problems (COM-8 to COM-14). Simple problems involved three
to five options with up to seven dimensions; each complex problem described at least eight options on at least five dimensions.
The score range (0 19) for the comprehension index is greater
than the number of problems because some problems were accompanied by two questions. A sample comprehension problem is
shown in Figure 1; the full set of problems is provided in the online
supplemental materials. Eight problems were developed de novo;
COM-3.
Serving Size
Calories Per Serving
Amount Per Serving
Total Fat
Cholesterol
Sugars
Protein
Net Weight
Brand A
Brand B
Brand C
Brand D
Brand E
100g
220
250g
250
200g
190
250 g
200
200g
180
1.5g
20.0mg
30g
14g
500g
3.0g
15.0mg
25g
18g
500g
2.0g
25.0mg
20g
14g
1000g
2.5 g
10.0 mg
29 g
12 g
1000 g
3.0g
15.0mg
30g
13g
500g
Brand A
Brand B
Brand A
Brand B
Brand C
Brand D
Brand C
Brand D
Brand E
Brand E
CON-5.
Below are facts about some mutual funds. For each fund, the box shows
the previous years gross return, minimum investment required, and
years that the fund has been active. Based on these data, which fund
would you choose? Note that there is no right answer. Base your answer
on your own preference.
Previous Years
Gross Return
Minimum
Investment
Years of
Activity
Fund A
7.10%
$1,500
15
Fund B
5.15%
$1,000
Fund C
6.60%
$1,500
Fund D
8.40%
$2,500
10
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Fund A
Fund B
Fund C
Fund D
Figure 2. Example consistency problem presenting unordered information (the second presentation shows the same information ordered by gross
return).
275
DW-2.
Imagine you need to choose a health plan based on the member ratings
given in the box below. Look carefully at the data and tell us which one
you would choose. Note that there is no right answer. Base your
answer on your own preference.
Plan A
Plan B
Plan C
Plan D
Plan E
Plan
A
Plan
B
Plan
C
Plan
D
Plan
E
62%
74%
61%
63%
60%
60%
62%
74%
61%
63%
61%
63%
60%
62%
74%
63%
60%
62%
74%
61%
74%
61%
63%
60%
62%
(b)
276
Table 1
Fractional Design for Administration of Cognitive Ability Marker Tests
Group
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Measure
10
150
150
240 each
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
5
5
5
360
600
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
6
4
300 each
600
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
5
5
120
30 each
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
6
8
180
300
0
1
7
31
0
1
7
27
1
0
5
28
0
1
5
33
0
1
5
34
1
0
5
30
0
1
7
29
1
0
6
34
1
1
7
30
1
1
7
35
5
7
Crystallized intelligence
Synonyms
Antonyms
Vocabulary (Part 1, Part 2)
Fluid intelligence
Locations
Ravens Matrices
Memory
Paired Associates (List 1, List 2)
Backward Digit Span
Perceptual speed
Digit Symbol Substitution
Letter Comparison (Part 1, Part 2)
Decision style
REIS Rational/Experiential
RiskBenefit (Part 1, Part 2)
Total no. tests in each group
Total time (min)
Note. 1 test administered, 0 test missing. Vocabulary Recognition Vocabulary; Locations Primary Mental Abilities Locations; Ravens
Matrices Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices; REIS RationalExperiential InventoryShort Form; RiskBenefit RiskBenefit Rating.
frequency during the past year was measured with a 5-point scale
(1 never, 2 rarely, 3 off and on, 4 frequently, 5 almost
every day).
As a measure of perceived need for decision support, respondents rated on a 4-point scale (1 none, 2 a small amount, 3
moderate amount, 4 a lot) how much assistance they would seek
if they had to choose a health plan, nutritional plan, or checking
account, in the next year. For each individual, we calculated an
index of decision support by averaging responses across the three
items.
Perceived decision self-efficacy was measured with five items
adapted from Lockenhoff and Carstensen (2007). A sample item is
Imagine you need medical care. How confident are you that you
can make decisions that would help you get the best care? Each
item was rated on a 7-point scale (1 cannot do at all to 7
Table 2
No. Participants Administered Each Cognitive Ability Marker Test
Group
Test
10
Synonyms
Antonyms
Vocabulary (Part 1, Part 2)
Locations
Ravens Matrices
Paired Associates (List 1, List 2)
Backward Digit Span
Digit Symbol Substitution
Letter Comparison (Part 1, Part 2)
REIS Rational/Experiential
RiskBenefit (Part 1, Part 2)
27
27
27
0
0
0
27
27
27
0
26
32
32
32
32
0
0
0
31
32
0
32
0
0
29
27
28
0
0
0
29
29
0
0
0
0
24
28
0
28
27
0
0
28
0
0
27
0
0
27
27
0
27
0
27
0
0
0
21
0
25
27
0
27
27
0
24
24
0
24
0
25
0
24
25
0
25
0
0
27
0
26
27
0
27
27
27
0
25
25
0
23
0
0
25
0
25
25
24
27
27
0
0
26
25
0
23
0
27
27
135
135
142
151
108
129
134
159
219
135
189
Note. Vocabulary Recognition Vocabulary; Ravens Matrices Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices; Locations Primary Mental Abilities
Locations; REIS RationalExperiential InventoryShort Form; RiskBenefit RiskBenefit Rating.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Statistical Analysis
We used multiple imputation (SAS PROC MI, data augmentation with Markov chain Monte Carlo data generation) to fill in
missing test scores. Three old-older participants did not complete
any of the in-person tests and were excluded from the imputed data
set. Because most missing data were missing by design in the
in-person test battery, these data can be considered missing completely at random. There were no missing data on the numeracy
items or DMC index scores; skips were scored as an incorrect
response. Eight imputations were created, in order to ensure efficiency of at least 95% (relative to asymptotic results) in all
variables included in the planned analyses. The imputation model
included demographic features, responses to questions about other
individual differences, and DMC index scores and other scores
from the booklet, in addition to the in-person tests.
All analyses were done with SAS (Release 9.1). Analyses
were carried out identically over all imputations, and results were
combined using Rubins rules (Rubin, 1987). This process involves adjusting the degrees of freedom, in order to obtain unbiased p values when sample size depends in part on imputed data
and the standard error estimates include between-imputation variability. Because data are complete by imputation, the sample size
does not vary between analyses.
The analysis first examined the psychometric performance of
the DMC tasks, including difficulty and discrimination. Next, we
verified the internal consistency of the various multi-item scores.
Then we discarded poorly performing tasks and adjusted scores to
maximize psychometric quality. This work was followed by multistep validation strategy of the DMC index scores, including
evaluation of both convergent and discriminant validity and
whether numeracy might be a mediator on the association between
277
Results
Participant Characteristics
As shown in Table 3, we were successful in enrolling approximately equal percentages of women in the three age groups. The
three groups were similar in household income and education but
differed in race/ethnicity distribution and ALFI-MMSE ( p
.0001).
278
Table 3
Participant Characteristics
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Measure
Age in years, M (SD)
Age range in years
Sex (% female)
Annual household income (% $50,000)
Education (% high school or more)
Hispanic (% yes)
Race (%)
Caucasian
Asian
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Other
ALFI-MMSE, M (SD)
Note.
Overall
(N 608)
Younger
(N 205)
Young-older
(N 208)
Old-older
(N 195)
61.4 (19.9)
2597
62.5
47.8
83.1
5.6
34.9 (6.0)
2545
66.8
47.3
86.3
13.7
69.7 (2.9)
6574
58.2
47.4
83.2
1.9
80.3 (4.7)
7597
62.6
48.8
79.5
1.0
45.8
31.8
15.4
7.0
21.3 (1.0)
28.2
32.1
27.4
12.4
21.6 (0.8)
54.9
29.2
11.5
4.3
21.3 (0.9)
54.7
34.4
6.8
4.1
21.0 (1.1)
Significance test
2
2
2
2
2
0.8, p .3665
0.11, p .7532
3.3, p .0681
30.7, p .0001
53.5, p .0001
Table 4
Cronbachs Coefficient Alpha for Comprehension, Consistency, Dimension-Weighting, and
Cognitive-Reflection Indices for Each Age Group
Cronbachs
Decision skill
Overall
Younger
Young older
Old older
Comprehension
Consistency
Dimension weighting
Cognitive reflection
019
09
012
06
.79
.41
.62
.80
.74
.41
.54
.82
.78
.32
.66
.80
.75
.44
.60
.77
279
Table 5
Principal-Components Solution, With Portion of Variance Accounted for in Each Item
(Communalities or h2)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Factor
Item
A (information
combination/
transformation)
B (information
salience/
relevance)
C
(other)
h2
CR-3
CR-6
COM-12b
COM-3b
CR-5
COM-13a
CR-1
COM-13b
COM-7
COM-14
COM-5b
COM-10
COM-4
COM-2
COM-1
COM-11
COM-8b
DW-2
DW-5
DW-1
COM-6
DW-9
DW-7
COM-9
DW-4
DW-10
DW-11
COM-8a
DW-3
COM-3a
DW-6
DW-12
DW-8
COM-5a
COM-12a
CR-4
CR-2
0.73
0.72
0.69
0.65
0.63
0.54
0.52
0.51
0.47
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.28
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.23
0.07
0.13
0.31
0.05
0.13
0.34
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.31
0.01
0.18
0.04
0.03
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.23
0.30
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.13
0.15
0.05
0.15
0.05
0.11
0.30
0.21
0.28
0.23
0.25
0.13
0.23
0.48
0.47
0.44
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.09
0.06
0.33
0.29
0.24
0.29
0.09
0.18
0.27
0.07
0.13
0.12
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.14
0.02
0.10
0.16
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.28
0.17
0.12
0.05
0.29
0.11
0.07
0.05
0.15
0.80
0.79
0.64
0.61
0.53
0.51
0.42
0.35
0.35
0.29
0.24
0.21
0.28
0.21
0.24
0.13
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.28
0.25
0.21
0.28
0.19
0.18
0.27
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.26
0.14
0.15
0.20
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.13
0.69
0.71
Note.
280
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Comprehension Items
0.5
Dimension-Weighting Items
0.4
Cognitive-Reflection Items
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Younger
Young-Older
Old-Older
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Age Group
Table 6
Mean Score (and Standard Deviation) for the Overall
Comprehension, Dimension-Weighting, and Cognitive-Reflection
Indices for Each Age Group
Decision skill
Comprehension (maximum
score 19)
Dimension weighting
(maximum score 12)
Cognitive reflection
(maximum score 6)
Younger
Young older
Old older
14.0 (3.2)
12.4 (3.8)
10.9 (3.7)
9.4 (2.0)
8.9 (2.4)
8.4 (2.4)
2.5 (2.1)
2.1 (2.0)
1.7 (1.8)
281
Table 7
Means (and Standard Deviations) on Individual-Difference Measures and Tests of Significant Differences Among Age Groups
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Measure
Overall
Self-reported health
Physical health (% excellent or good)
Mental health (% excellent or good)
No. medications
Doctor/nurse visits in previous month
Crystallized intelligence
Vocabularyb
Synonymsb
Antonymsc
Fluid intelligence
Ravens Matricesc
Locationsc
Memory
Backward Digit Spanb
Paired Associatesb
Perceptual speed
Letter Comparisonb
Digit Symbol Substitutionb
Attitudes and self-perceptions
Experience
Motivation
Skill with tables
Decision support
Self-reported memory
Driving almost daily (%)
Decision self-efficacy
Decision style
Riskbenefit correlationsb
REIS, Rationalc
REIS, Experientialc
Jellybeansc
Numeracy
Younger
Young older
Significance testa
Old older
2 15.5, p .0001
2 1.7, p .1926
F(2, 278302) 50.2, p .0001
F(2, 138166) 9.6, p .0001
77.2
91.3
1.7 (1.0)
0.7 (0.9)
67.3
89.3
1.2 (0.6)
0.5 (0.8)
80.8
91.7
2.0 (1.1)
0.8 (0.9)
83.8
92.9
2.0 (1.1)
0.9 (1.0)
13.5 (4.0)
6.3 (2.9)
5.8 (2.9)
11.8 (4.1)
5.2 (2.8)
5.0 (2.8)
14.1 (3.8)
6.7 (3.0)
6.2 (3.0)
14.7 (3.5)
7.1 (2.7)
6.4 (2.7)
6.4 (3.2)
4.3 (2.7)
8.8 (2.7)
5.6 (2.9)
5.9 (2.8)
3.9 (2.5)
4.3 (2.3)
3.3 (2.0)
6.8 (2.6)
2.1 (1.9)
7.6 (3.0)
3.3 (1.9)
6.4 (2.3)
1.5 (1.5)
6.4 (2.4)
1.4 (1.4)
9.2 (3.0)
64.5 (21.3)
11.7 (2.9)
82.4 (20.6)
8.3 (2.0)
60.1 (14.5)
7.6 (2.3)
50.3 (13.9)
2.9 (0.7)
3.4 (0.6)
2.9 (0.7)
1.8 (0.7)
3.7 (0.9)
63.4
5.6 (0.9)
2.9 (0.7)
3.4 (0.6)
3.1 (0.7)
2.0 (0.7)
3.6 (0.9)
69.8
5.6 (0.8)
2.9 (0.7)
3.4 (0.5)
2.8 (0.7)
1.7 (0.6)
3.7 (0.9)
64.4
5.6 (0.9)
2.9 (0.6)
3.4 (0.6)
2.7 (0.6)
1.8 (0.7)
3.9 (1.0)
55.5
5.4 (0.9)
0.43 (0.37)
42.5 (7.9)
40.3 (8.6)
0.4 (2.1)
1.8 (1.0)
0.47 (0.32)
43.8 (8.0)
41.4 (8.1)
0.7 (2.1)
2.0 (0.9)
0.43 (0.38)
42.3 (7.6)
40.6 (8.2)
0.5 (2.1)
1.7 (0.9)
0.39 (0.40)
41.5 (8.2)
38.8 (9.4)
0.1 (2.1)
1.5 (0.9)
F(2,
F(2,
F(2,
F(2,
F(2,
a
Degrees of freedom are adjusted according to Rubins rules, as part of combining imputations. The less efficient the imputed values, the more the df will
be inflated. b Indicates that the variable was transformed to normality for imputation and then back-transformed to the original units. c Indicates that the
variable was not transformed but does have imputed values.
Discussion
Our first aim was to assemble performance-based items ranging
in difficulty to measure specific DMC skills across the adult life
span. The items produced a test yielding an appropriate range of
scores and different levels of complexity that are often faced in
real life (Tanius et al., 2009). Unlike previous research, our study
282
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 8
Correlations of Decision-Making Competence Index Scores With Demographic Variables and Individual Difference Measures
Comprehension index
Dimension-weighting
index
Measure
Age
Gender (female 0, male 1)
Income
Education
Physical healtha
Emotional healtha
No. medicationsa
Doctor/nurse visitsa
Vocabularya
Synonymsa
Antonymsb
Ravens Matricesb
Locationsb
Backward Digit Spana
Paired Associatesa
Letter Comparisona
Digit Symbol Substitutiona
Experiencea
Motivationa
Skill with tablesa
Decision supporta
Self-reported memorya
Drivinga
Decision self-efficacya
Riskbenefit correlationa
REIS, Rationalb
REIS Experientialb
Jellybeansb
Numeracyb
.33
.08
.20
.33
.10
.15
.22
.09
.27
.34
.37
.50
.26
.30
.40
.36
.39
.05
.11
.33
.01
.05
.19
.00
.06
.30
.13
.25
.50
.0001
.0633
.0001
.0001
.0156
.0002
.0001
.0353
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.2004
.0055
.0001
.7737
.2411
.0001
.9381
.2234
.0001
.0041
.0001
.0001
.17
.11
.14
.19
.09
.10
.15
.07
.19
.12
.15
.24
.09
.22
.15
.22
.19
.10
.11
.22
.15
.00
.16
.05
.06
.23
.11
.16
.32
.0001
.0083
.0007
.0001
.0339
.0110
.0003
.0805
.0001
.0030
.0013
.0001
.0370
.0001
.0005
.0001
.0001
.0127
.0076
.0001
.0003
.9988
.0001
.1899
.2144
.0001
.0110
.0001
.0001
.18
.20
.21
.33
.11
.11
.12
.05
.27
.35
.35
.44
.24
.26
.32
.23
.24
.06
.08
.29
.01
.00
.11
.01
.04
.16
.02
.21
.53
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0058
.0080
.0036
.1885
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.1191
.0559
.0001
.8976
.9450
.0054
.8308
.4324
.0001
.6232
.0001
.0001
Indicates that the variable was transformed to normality for imputation and then back-transformed to the original units.
not transformed but does have imputed values.
Cognitive-reflection index
.505
.519
.539
.539
.294
.014
.020
.001
.539
.211
.154
.106
Total
R2
.057
Change
in R2
.514
.514
.515
.497
.489
.198
.146
.105
Adjusted
R2
F test of R2
.003
.027
.036
.083
.024
Change
in R2
.223
.223
.220
.193
.157
.074
.050
0.030
Total
R2
.181
.181
.179
.156
.130
.058
.041
0.029
Adjusted
R2
F test of R2
Dimension weighting
.003
.008
.005
.243
.016
Change
in R2
.437
.437
.434
.426
.421
.178
.162
0.033
Total
R2
.406
.406
.404
.400
.402
.164
.153
0.032
Adjusted
R2
F test of R2
Cognitive reflection
Exogenous social variables include gender, income, education, and race. b Health measures include physical health, emotional health, number of medications, and number of doctor/nurse
visits. c Basic cognitive skills measures include Vocabulary, Synonyms, Antonyms, Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices, Locations, Backward Digit Span, Paired Associates, Letter Comparison,
and Digit Symbol Substitution. d Attitudinal and self-perception measures include experience, motivation, skill with tables, decision support, self-rated memory, driving, and decision selfefficacy. e Decision-style measures include risk benefit correlation, RationalExperiential InventoryShort Form (REIS) Rational and Experiential, and Jellybeans.
Full model
Analysis 2
Step 1: Social
variablesa
Step 2: Health
measuresb
Step 3: Basic cognitive
skills measuresc
Step 4: Attitudinal and
self-perception
measuresd
Step 5: Decision style
measurese
Step 6: Adding age
Analysis 1
Step 1: Age by itself
Independent variable
Comprehension
Table 9
Hierarchical Regressions With R2 and Increment in R2 From a Series of Regression Models With the Comprehension, Dimension-Weighting, and Cognitive-Reflection
Indices as the Dependent Variables
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
283
.410
.410
.420
.140
.420
.163
.177
.497
.497
.506
.506
.253
.252
.253
0.073
.177
.163
.163
.497
.506
Analysis 1
Step 1: Basic cognitive
skills measuresa
Step 2: Add numeracyb to
cognitive skills
Analysis 2
Step 1: Numeracy by
itself
Step 2: Add basic
cognitive skills
Full model
.039
.467
.459
.045
.177
.132
.118
.072
.420
.410
F test of R2
Adjusted
R2
Independent variable
Change
in R2
Total
R2
Adjusted
R2
F test of R2
Change
in R2
Total
R2
Adjusted
R2
F test of R2
Change
in R2
Total
R2
Cognitive reflection
Dimension weighting
Comprehension
Table 10
Hierarchical Regressions Examining Contribution of Numeracy vs. Cognitive Skills to Variance in Index Scores (Participants With Imputed Data, Constant N 608)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
a
Measures of basic cognitive skills include Vocabulary, Synonyms, Antonyms, Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices, Locations, Backward Digit Span, Paired Associates, Letter Comparison, and
Digit Symbol Substitution. b Numeracy scores are based on the three-item measure by Schwartz et al. (1997).
284
Limitations
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, some
authors, as a rule of thumb, strictly require a reliability of 0.70 or
higher before they will use an instrument. This level of reliability
was achieved only by the comprehension and cognitive-reflection
indices. The rule of thumb should be applied with caution, though,
because the appropriate degree of reliability depends upon the use
of the instrument (e.g., we could increase reliability by adding
items, but because this tool is designed to be appropriate for older
adults, we intentionally kept it short).
A second limitation of this study is that we used convenience
samples and (for budget reasons) did not sample 45- to 64-yearolds. Consequently, the results may not generalize to the broader
population. A third limitation is that our research did not address
activities of daily living besides health, nutrition, and financial
decisions. Researchers should assess health-risk behaviors (notably smoking, exercise, and driving) and retirement and death
issues (e.g., inheritance tax issues, advance directives), but those
were beyond the scope of this study. Fourth, the content of the
cognitive-reflection items is somewhat different from that of the
comprehension and dimension-weighting items. Future research
might benefit from content reflecting more real-world, personally
relevant choices for cognitive-reflection items.
Fifth, the cross-sectional rather than longitudinal design means
that cohort effects may be interpreted as developmental changes.
The better control offered by a longitudinal design would be
advantageous, but the cost and logistical complexity of conducting
a study that would extend for more than 50 years (if 45-year-olds
were to be followed until they were 100 years old) is not warranted
until a reliable and valid DMC measurement tool is established.
The cross-sectional design also poses a challenge for interpreting
age-related variance, because the design confounds individual
differences in age and the average between-person differences.
The covariance may be at least partly a product of age-related
mean trends in the population (Hofer, Berg, & Era, 2003).
Finally, we must underscore that our correlational results do not
imply causality. Although speculation about the cognitive processes or neural substrates responsible for variables influencing
DMC is tempting, our correlational analyses are best viewed as a
classification and not an explanation of these effects. More direct
tests of causal relationships include prospective studies examining
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
285
Figure 5. Final model indicating significant associations among model variables. Covariances join two latent
factors on the same side of the model with a double-pointed arrow, whereas error terms have a one-way arrow
between observed and error variables. Variances have a two-headed arrow, with both heads pointing at the same
latent factor. Significant standardized coefficients are on a single-headed arrow between latent factors (structural
model) or between latent and observed factors (measurement model).
Theoretical Implications
In this and previous papers, we conceive of DMC as a multidimensional concept, including the skills of comprehension, consistency, identifying information relevance, and tempering impulsivity. Each of these abilities is expected to tap functionally different
areas of decision processes. Although we were unable to develop
a reliable index of consistency, reliability of the other indices was
adequate and moderate correlations among the indices suggested
related yet distinct components of DMC. These results show the
importance of distinguishing among decision skills. Other components of DMC need to be investigated to further our understanding
of complex constructs such as rational information integration
and how and why DMC changes with age.
A view of DMC as a complex, compiled form of cognition
(Appelbaum & Grisso, 1988; Park, 1992; Salthouse, 1990; Willis
& Schaie, 1986) is supported by our finding that basic cognitive
abilities were the strongest predictors of DMC. Age-related
Policy Implications
A robust method for measuring individual differences in DMC
can enable decision support to be tailored toward those who need
it in a timely manner. The present research has advanced a way of
measuring exactly when, where, and how older adults need help
and whether the needs of old-older adults differ from those of
young-older adults. Decision support may come in the form of
decision agents or optimal information presentation formats and
training tools. Longer life spans and the rapid aging of the worlds
population (United Nations Population Division, 2002) demand
ways of creating decision environments that rely less on qualities
typical of youth (e.g., speed) and rely more on qualities typical of
age (e.g., crystallized intelligence, wisdom, emotional regulation).
In sum, we have developed and evaluated new, standardized
indices of comprehension, dimension weighting, and cognitive
286
reflection, applicable across the adult life span. The present results
support the overall construct validity of DMC as well as the
predictive validity of tasks drawn from behavioral decision research. Our systematically developed battery of items, which were
tested on a large, diverse sample that included old-older adults,
suggests that the DMC indices have promise for measuring individual differences in decision skills.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
References
Adams, C., Smith, M. C., Nyquist, L., & Perlmutter, M. (1997). Adult
age-group differences in recall for the literal and interpretive meanings
of narrative text. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences, 52, 187195.
Allaire, J. C., & Marsiske, M. (1999). Everyday cognition: Age and
intellectual ability correlates. Psychology and Aging, 14, 627 644.
Appelbaum, P. S., & Grisso, T. (1988). Assessing patients capacities to
consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 1635
1638.
Appelbaum, P. S., Grisso, T., Frank, E., ODonnell, S., & Kupfer, D.
(1999). Competence of depressed patients for consent to research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1380 1384.
Artistico, D., Cervone, D., & Pezzuti, L. (2003). Perceived self-efficacy
and everyday problem solving among young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 18, 68 79.
Baltes, P. B. (1993). The aging mind: Potential and limits. Gerontologist,
33, 580 594.
Baltes, P. B., & Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on
successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation. In M. M. Baltes & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences (pp. 134). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Baltes, P. B., Cornelius, S. W., Spiro, A., Nesselroade, J. R., & Willis, S. L.
(1980). Integration versus differentiation of fluid/crystallized intelligence in old age. Developmental Psychology, 16, 625 635.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 11731182.
Betz, N. E. (1996). Test construction. In F. T. Leong & J. T. Austin (Eds.),
The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and
research assistants (pp. 239 250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, S. C., & Park, D. C. (2003). Theoretical models of cognitive aging
and implications for translational research in medicine. Gerontologist,
43, 57 67.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual
differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92, 938 956.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116 131.
Carroll, J. B. (1974). Psychometric tests as cognitive tasks: A new structure of intellect. Educational Testing Service, 74 116.
Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional
selectivity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 151156.
Carstensen, L. L. (1998). A life-span approach to social motivation. In
J. Heckhausen & C. W. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation
across the life span (pp. 341364). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth and action. New
York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in
objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309 319.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes error: Emotion, reason, and the human
brain. New York, NY: Avon.
Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819 829.
Denney, N. W. (1989). Everyday problem solving: Methodological issues,
research findings, and a model. In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A.
Wilson (Eds.), Everyday cognition in adulthood and late life (pp. 330
351). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Donelle, L., Hoffman-Goetz, L., & Arocha, J. F. (2007). Assessing health
numeracy among community-dwelling older adults. Journal of Health
Communication, 12, 651 665.
Downs, J. S., Murray, P. J., Bruine de Bruin, W., White, J. P., Palmgren,
C., & Fischhoff, B. (2004). An interactive video program to reduce
adolescent females STD risk: A randomized controlled trial. Social
Science and Medicine, 59, 15611572.
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380 417.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H., & Derman, D. (1976). Manual
for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests (Rev. ed.). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic
unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709 724.
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive experiential self-theory of personality. In T.
Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and
social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 159 184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual
differences in intuitive experiential and analyticalrational thinking
styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390 405.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The
affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 13, 117.
Finucane, M. L., Mertz, C. K., Slovic, P., & Schmidt, E. S. (2005). Task
complexity and older adults decision-making competence. Psychology
and Aging, 20, 71 84.
Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Hibbard, J., Peters, E., Mertz, C. K., &
MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Aging and decision-making competence: An
analysis of comprehension and consistency skills in older versus
younger adults considering health-plan options. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 15, 141164.
Fitten, L. J., Lusky, R., & Hamann, C. (1990). Assessing treatment
decision-making capacity in elderly nursing home residents. Journal of
the American Geriatrics Society, 38, 10971104.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25 42.
Grisso, T., Appelbaum, P., & Hill-Fotouhi, C. (1997). The MacCAT-T: A
clinical tool to assess patients capacities to make treatment decisions.
Psychiatric Services, 48, 14151419.
Hess, T. M. (1990). Aging schematic influences on memory. In T. M. Hess
(Ed.), Aging and cognition: Knowledge organization and utilization (pp.
93160). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland.
Hibbard, J. H., Peters, E., Dixon, A., & Tusler, M. (2007). Consumer
competencies and the use of comparative quality information. Medical
Care Research and Review, 64, 379 394.
Hofer, S. M., Berg, S., & Era, P. (2003). Evaluating the interdependence of
aging-related changes in visual and auditory acuity, balance, and cognitive functioning. Psychology and Aging, 18, 285305.
Horn, J. L., & Hofer, S. M. (1992). Major abilities and development in the
adult period. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual
development (pp. 44 99). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Janofsky, J., McCarthy, R., & Folstein, M. (1992). The Hopkins Competency Assessment Test: A brief method for evaluating patients capacity
to give informed consent. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 43,
132136.
Johnson, M. (1990). Age differences in decision making: A process meth-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
287
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
288
role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966 972.
Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it
relevant? Acta Psychologica, 81, 75 86.
Smith, A. D. (1996). Memory. In J. E. Birren (Ed.), The encyclopedia of
gerontology (pp. 107119). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing
effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 283290.
Stanley, B., Guido, J., Stanley, M., & Shortell, D. (1984). The elderly
patient and informed consent: Empirical findings. Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 13021306.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning:
Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
23, 645726.
Tanius, B. E., Wood, S., Hanoch, Y., & Rice, T. (2009). Aging and choice:
Applications to Medicare Part D. Judgment and Decision Making, 4,
92101.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of
Sociology, 33, 529 554.
United Nations Population Division. (2002). World population ageing: